The second is that affirmation is an inner utterance of the mind that includes knowledge; this was the position adopted by Ibn al-Baqillani and Ibn al-Juwayni. These scholars expressly stated that it entails knowledge, and it is inconceivable that an affirmation could lodge in the soul while contradicting the knowledge it possesses, as they themselves (1) have noted. Were it possible for a person inwardly to affirm something at odds with his own knowledge and conviction, their very principle concerning faith would be overturned (2); for if affirmation does not preclude holding a belief contrary to that which is being affirmed (3), then a person would not necessarily be a believer merely on account of the mind’s affirmation alone. Each of the two statements, therefore, invalidates the proof that affirmation is distinct from knowledge.
Al-Nisaburi (4) said: “Imam Abu al-Qasim al-Isfarayini related that there was a difference of opinion among the companions of Abu al-Hasan (5) regarding affirmation,” and then he added (6): “and the correct view…"
= They do not distinguish between ma‘rifa (knowledge) of the heart and its tasdīq (belief), and they claim: “What Ibn Kullāb and al-Ash‘arī said about this distinction is false speech with no reality.”
In my view, there is no difference between knowing and believing, since no one can believe in something without first knowing it.
There is, however, a difference between the Ash‘arī and the Jahmī positions on īmān (faith):
– The Jahmī position—which is the most objectionable and corrupt teaching ever held about faith—is that īmān consists of belief in the heart only. They do not include any acts of the heart—such as love of Allah and His Messenger, love for what Allah and His Messenger love, hatred for what Allah and His Messenger hate, reliance upon Allah, fear of Him, and similar internal states—within īmān.
– The Ash‘arī position also defines īmān as belief in the heart alone, but it includes those very acts of the heart within its scope. From this the distinction between the two views becomes clear, and the Jahmī doctrine is shown to be the more heinous and more corrupt.
(1) In the original: “ma.” I have supplied what seemed appropriate to the context from manuscripts S and T.
(2) In the original: “lā yantaqid.” I have supplied what fits from S and T.
(3) In the original: “idh.” Supplied from S and T.
(4) He is Abū al-Qāsim Sulaymān ibn Nāṣir al-Anṣārī al-Naysābūrī, commentator on al-Juwaynī’s al-Irshād; see the discussion of him and his commentary, p. 643.
(5) In the original: “al-Ḥusayn.” Supplied from S and T; this is correct for his kunyā. See his introduction, p. 167.
(6) The author is al-Isfarāʾīnī.